What If A Conservative Said This?

Seriously...what would the furor be if a conservative had said this?  Imagine how loudly the media would be screaming...

Obama's 10 Year Deficit to Top $9.8 Trillion Dollars!

The Congressional Budget Office has released it's analysis of the future of Mr. Obama's planned budgets.  The CBO says that his budgets will produce deficits that are much, much larger than what the Obama Administration says will arise.  The total will  reach almost $10,000,000,000,000.00.  That figure is as much larger as last years budget deficit was in total.  

The agency says its future-year predictions of tax revenues are more pessimistic than the administration's. That's because CBO projects slightly slower economic growth than the White House.  The deficit picture has turned alarmingly worse since the recession that started at the end of 2007, never dipping below 4 percent of the size of the economy over the next decade. Economists say that deficits of that size are unsustainable and could put upward pressure on interest rates, crowd out private investment in the economy and ultimately erode the nation's standard of living.

A deficit that large, every single year for the next ten years will double the size of the national debt.  That is unsustainable by any measure, and will cause this country to have a budget crisis of epic proportions.  It's time to get our political "elites" attention and let them know that we will not have spending like this any more. 

It's well past time for a a balanced budget amendment  be added to the Constitution.  This Congress has made a mockery of PayGo legislation that can easily be side stepped by labelling it as an "emergency" provision.  Thus cuts don't have to be made elsewhere in order to make up for that specific bill. 

Vote smart, relect no one.

Reconciliation: The Democrats View

From Naked Emporer News, a compilation of Democratic Senators denouncing the use of reconciliation to pass legislation.

Gibbs Says Obama Saved Iraq

Robert Gibbs is claiming that Mr. Obama "saved Iraq." These despite his strong opposition to the surge in troops levels by Mr. Bush in late 2006-7 that actually proved to be the turning point in that conflict. Yet again the duplicity of the Obama Administration is shown, by attempting to claim credit for something he made a career of opposition to is...almost beyond belief. GatewayPundit says that,

Robert Gibbs today tried to take credit for the success in Iraq even though both Biden* and Obama voted against the successful surge that stabilized the country. That’s not all. Biden caused rioting and protests when he pushed legislation to divide Iraq into three countries. Barack Obama told supporters in 2007 that, “Preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.”

The emphasis is mine.

H/T, GatewayPundit, via Instapundit.com

Obama's Promise NOT to Raise Middle Class Taxes

But now he's evidently changed his mind. He's now calling himself an "agnostic" on middle class tax increases.

President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.

Obama, in a Feb. 9 Oval Office interview, said that a presidential commission on the budget needs to consider all options for reducing the deficit, including tax increases and cuts in spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

“The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table,” the president said in the interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “So what I want to do is to be completely agnostic, in terms of solutions.”

So when you put aside the bullshit, that means there WILL be major tax increases in the next few month. Yet another campaign promise cast aside. I suppose that we can put that one with the "transparency" promise.




Hat tip: Instapundit.com

Sick of "Inherited" Deficit

I just received this in an email from a friend. It's not attributed to anyone in particular. If it was, I'd certainly give them credit.

By Anonymous

The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush, blah blah blah.
Amazingly enough, a lot of people continue to swallow this nonsense.
So once more, let's try a short civics lesson.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled
Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008
and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush,
which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions
to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus
spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of
these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.

Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:



If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets.
That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that,
Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is HE inherited a deficit that HE voted for and then HE voted to expand
that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

Any questions about who inherited what?

Hillbuzz Bloggers Under Attack By Chicago/Obama Machine

Hillbuzz.org a group of Gay bloggers in Chicago who were originally supporters of Hillary Clinton in the 2008 election cycle are now under attack by the Chicago/Obama political machine. This link will take you to their blog post about the attack. They have slowly morphed over the past 2 years from committed Democrats to Libertarian/Moderates who support Sarah Palin among others who are most assuredly NOT liberals.

They are being slurred across the 'net as being racists, and having their identities exposed (they blog anonymously). While I choose not to be anonymous, I fully support those who blog so because of their particular situation...as long as they don't hurl invective around that is...but these guys are paying a very heavy price for using their 1st amendment right of free speech. Do what ever you can to help them...

Thanks,

Rich

crossposted at conservativefirestorm

Senate Dem's To Plan To Subvert

Bloomberg is reporting that Congressional Democrats will attempt to ram through the nationalization of 1/6th of the American economy through the "reconciliation" process wherein only 51 affirmative votes are necessary to achieve passage of certain spending bills. By Jonathan D. Salant

Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Even if Democrats lose the Jan. 19 special election to pick a new Massachusetts senator, Congress may still pass a health-care overhaul by using a process called reconciliation, a top House Democrat said.

That procedure requires 51 votes rather than the 60 needed to prevent Republicans from blocking votes on President Barack Obama’s top legislative priorities. That supermajority is at risk as the Massachusetts race has tightened.

“Even before Massachusetts and that race was on the radar screen, we prepared for the process of using reconciliation,” said Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

“Getting health-care reform passed is important,” Van Hollen said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. “Reconciliation is an option.”

Using reconciliation would likely force Democrats to scale back their health-care plans. The procedure is designed to make deficit-cutting easier by reducing the number of votes needed to pass unpopular tax increases and spending cuts. Lawmakers can’t include policy changes that the parliamentarian deems have only an “incidental” connection to budget-cutting, and senators would need 60 votes to override those rulings.

If, as now seems possible Scott Brown wins the now vacant Senate seat in Massachusetts, and the Senate Dem's in fact do use the reconciliation process to pass this legislation, this will so enrage the country that the Dem's will lose just about every single contested Senate race this fall. As it is, 57% of likely voters are opposed to ALL of the possible convolutions of the health care bills before Congress...then the voter revolt in the fall will by ugly and pervasive.

Actor Danny Glover Blames Haiti E-Quake on Global Warming

What a clueless bonehead.

Coakley DSCC Thug Roughs Up Reporter

After attending a fundraiser for high rolling lobbyists at a restaurant in Washington, DC, far from her normal digs in Massachusetts (no final e in that word) Ms. Coakley allowed just 2 questions from reporters outside. In a truly class act, a thug reported to be a "consultant" for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, assaulted a reporter working for the Weekly Standard magazine.

After taking a question from a CNN reporter on the street outside the restaurant, I asked her:

TWS: Attorney General Coakley, you said last night that there are no terrorists in Afghanistan--that they're all in Yemen and Pakistan. Do you stand by that remark?

COAKLEY: I'm sorry, did someone else have a question?

GRIFF JENKINS, Fox News: I did. Why are you in Washington tonight?

COAKLEY: We planned an event after the primary that would be a unity event in Washington. We're also in the middle of a very intense campaign [...]

As I walked down the street, a man who appeared to be associated with the Coakley campaign pushed me into a freestanding metal railing. I ended up on the sidewalk. I was fine. He helped me up from the ground, but kept pushing up against me, blocking my path toward Coakley down the street.



He asked if I was with the media, and I told him I work for THE WEEKLY STANDARD. When I asked him who he worked for he replied, "I work for me." He demanded to see my credentials, and even though it was a public street, I showed them to him.

I eventually got around him and met up with the attorney general halfway down the block.

"Attorney General, could I ask you a question please?" I said. "We're done, thanks," Coakley replied. She walked back toward the restaurant, apparently searching for her car. She remained silent as I (politely) repeated my question.

Coakley staffers told me they didn't know who the man was who pushed me, though by every indication he was somehow connected to the campaign. [emphasis is editors]

Now we know how the Democratic Party is going to act this year. Now all they have to do is buy their "consultants" brown shirts, and they'll fit right in with their socialist agenda.

UPDATE: Dana Loesh, of Biggovernment.com has the name of the thug and it is:

A tipster tells me that the man who was pushing me outside of a Capitol Hill fundraiser Tuesday night for Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley is Michael Meehan.

Meehan heads up a firm called Blue Line Strategic Communications along with his partner David DiMartino, who was outside the fundraiser with Coakley tonight and introduced himself to me there. The AP reported on Monday that Meehan is also working for Coakley: “The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee also dispatched Michael Meehan, a media consultant with ties to Massachusetts, to assist the Coakley camp with messaging.”

Though I can’t say with 100 percent certainty, I think that Meehan is the man who shoved me into a metal railing Tuesday night.

It seems that Mrs. Coakley wants to lay the blame upon some phantom “stalkers.” But this is the best part:

“Coakley said she is not ‘privy’ to the facts surrounding the incident involving reporter John McCormack last night, who wrote about the episode outside the Sonoma restaurant in Washington, D.C. in an online dispatch titled: “We Report, We Get Pushed.” The Wall Street Journal reported the Coakley fund-raiser at the Sonoma restaurant in Washington, D.C. was put on by health care industry lobbyists.”

To see how much bull shit is invovled here take a look at the picture above! She's staring right at the reporter on the grown. Sort of difficult to buy that line.

Did Harry Reid Ask You To Stop Using Your Negro Dialect Too?

What this means if you're a Democrat, you can say anything as insulting as you want. You get a free pass. On the other hand if you have an R by your name. then you are automatically a racist.

I've always thought that those on the left could be just as big a bigot as those on the far right. Now we have proof.

Now, if you oppose Obama's policies, you are a certified racist and not to be taken seriously. The Democratic party is now officially the party of bigotry. This has been the case since the Civil War, when they founded the KKK. It's good to see they have finally stripped off their false colours of equality and political correctness. Everything is permitted if you are of the "correct" party.

Democrats Health Bill Is Legalized Looting

Robert Tracinski writes political comentary on the Intellectual Activist. Here is the the conclusion of his column for today, and it's a barn burner.

Usually a major welfare-state bill has to be passed by Congress and go into effect before it is exposed as corrupt. The money has to actually be flowing out of Washington before anyone notices that it's being diverted into a cesspool of special favors and sweetheart deals.

But a lot of things are unprecedented about the current push for a health care bill. Never has such a major expansion of the welfare state been passed without bipartisan support and broad approval from the public. And rarely has the corruption of a program been exposed while it is still awaiting final approval in Congress.

...

In short, Pelosi, Reid, and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel will cobble together 2,000 pages of legislation between themselves, larding the bill with special favors and obscure clauses—then they'll spring it on rank-and-file Democratic congressmen and order them to vote for it within a day or two, before they can even figure out what's in it.

How long before some Democratic congressmen become tired of being abused in this fashion—or begin to fear being seen as political hacks by their constituents back home?

The special deals and payoffs are incidental to the bill in one sense; if they were all removed it would still be a bad bill. But in another sense, they reveal something essential about a government takeover of health care: it is all about looting, about how one group of people can tax and regulate others in an attempt to get something for nothing. All statist programs are rife with this kind of scheming, and they have to be, because whenever wealth is seized by force, there is a battle among the looters over how to divide the spoils.

Of course, the Democrats campaigned in 2006 and 2008 by promising "transparency" and railing against a "culture of corruption." But they just can't help themselves because big government is the culture of corruption. Every time private money is seized or diverted by the government, it sets off a mad scramble in which every pressure group is afraid of being on the losing end. In the cannibalistic jargon of Washington, if you're not on the table, you're on the menu. And there is no honest way to resolve these disputes because everyone has an equally legitimate claim to the looted wealth—which is to say, none at all. So principles don't apply, and it's all just unscrupulous horse-trading.

The Cornhusker Kickback is a very visible reminder of this fact, which is why it has become the emblem of this bill. In one action, Senator Nelson and Majority Leader Reid have managed to bring the entire United States Congress into disrepute—and this is sinking the prospects for final passage of the health care bill.

To paraphrase Churchill, the Democrats in Congress had to choose between legislative defeat and dishonor. They chose dishonor. They will get defeat.

Jack Cafferty Rips Obama A New A$$

This is a schocker..."President Obama hasn't even made a token effort to keep his campaign promise..."

More:

Barack Obama lies 8 times about C-SPAN coverage.

Democrats Transparency Is A Fraud On The American People

Democratic claims that the government seizure of health care has been the most transparent process ever is a lie. It took me 30 seconds to come up with these headlines:

"Democrats are starting to mash together the Senate and House health-care bills, All of the negotiations taking place in secret." -- The Wall Street Journal, 1/2/10.

"After months of buildup, the historic debate on health care reform opens on the Senate floor Monday -- But the C-SPAN cameras won't see the real action." -- Politico, 11/30/09.

"Sen. Harry Reid is conducting 'backroom negotiations' to secure votes for the health care bill. -- Politico, 11/30/09.

"Small group now leads closed negotiations on health-care bill." -- The Washington Post, 10/18/09.

Obama lied so he could take over one sixth of the American economy. Now his enablers in the Congressional leadership are attempting to finish the job, an finish off the middle class in the process.

America Rising

It's good, watch it NOW!

Chris Mathews Is A Liar And A Bigot

Watch the video and you'll see the "monochromatic" audience...Chris Mathews is a liar and a bigot, and here's the proof.

The Most Transparent Administration Ever: NOT!

When he was campaigning last year, Mr. Obama swore that C-SPAN would have access to all Congressional meetings that his administration was concerned with.

We'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.

That was then this is now. C-SPAN is being denied access to the Reconciliation process between the House and the Senate this month. The New Republic is reporting that the Democratic leadership in both houses have decided to bypass the conference committee process in order to avoid having to televise those meetings on C-SPAN.

According to a pair of senior Capitol Hill staffers, one from each chamber, House and Senate Democrats are “almost certain” to negotiate informally rather than convene a formal conference committee. Doing so would allow Democrats to avoid a series of procedural steps--not least among them, a series of special motions in the Senate, each requiring a vote with full debate--that Republicans could use to stall deliberations, just as they did in November and December. “There will almost certainly be full negotiations but no formal conference,” the House staffer says. “There are too many procedural hurdles to go the formal conference route in the Senate.” [moreover] “I think the Republicans have made our decision for us," the Senate staffer says. "It’s time for a little ping-pong.” “Ping pong” is a reference to one way the House and Senate could proceed. With ping-ponging, the chambers send legislation back and forth to one another until they finally have an agreed-upon version of the bill.

Yet C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb argues [via motherjones.com]:

President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation’s editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation’s health care system. Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the Chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American.

He has a point. But Lamb shouldn't expect Obama to lean on his fellow Dems in Congress to grant C-SPAN its wish. Last July, Obama was asked about his campaign pledge:

Q: You promised that health care negotiations would take place on C-SPAN and that hasn't happened....Are you fulfilling your promise of transparency in the White House?

He replied:

With respect to all the negotiations not being on C-SPAN, you will recall in this very room that our kick-off event was here on C-SPAN. And at a certain point, you know, you start getting into all kinds of different meetings. The Senate Finance Committee is having a meeting. The House is having a meeting. If they want those to be on C-SPAN, then I would welcome it. I don't think there are a lot of secrets going on in there.

That was a dodgy answer. Obama's "kick-off event" was not part of the negotiations. And there are always "secrets" when legislators come together in private to slice and dice the sausage. Lamb is right to press Congress to show citizens how this important bill is being finalized. But he sure shouldn't count on filling any programming holes with broadcasts of these proceedings.

After all, we can't have the proles getting a look into how things are really done by Congress, now can we? Yet another campaign promise goes by the boards. Obama lied, America pays, and pays and will pay for decades to come.

If Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid do succeed in shutting out the GOP from the reconciliation process, then the Democratic Party will not just own this disastrous bill, but they will hang this millstone around the necks of your children's children children...

Jimmy Carter's Epiphany

It seems that James Earl Carter, one of the worst presidents in our history has had an epiphany. It seems he is sorry that he's been harsh on Jews, lo, these past 30 years. Either that, or its because his grandson is running for the Georgia state senate in a district that has a high percentage of Jews as constituents. Hhhmm....what do you think?

Health Care Seizure Not So Important After All?

There are now credible reports that Congress will, at the behest of the President, put of the reconciliation process until after the State of the Union Address in Late January. Instead he will ask that a second "stimulus package" hidden behind the facade of "jobs bill" be taken to the fore...

So, the Democratic led Congress will borrow upwards of $500,000,000,000.00 to create jobs...isn't that what the original "stimulus package" was supposed to do? Isn't this throwing good money after bad? The Democrats in Congress blew $800,000,000,000.00 on pork "to keep unemployment below 8%." That failed so they are going to do it again.

The basic premise of insanity is that you continue to do the same thing over and over again, getting the same result time after time...yet expecting things to change. That's crazy...yet here we are again for the fourth time, going to save jobs with a stimulus bill...

1st: TARP supposed to keep banks from collapsing...failed, many regional banks have failed (300+ so far have been taken over by the government...failed.
2nd: "Stimulus Package", supposed to keep unemployment below 8%...failed
3rd: Health Care Seizure...supposed to "save" money (just like Medicare is)...failed
4th: "Jobs Bill"..will keep unemployment below 8%...failure in the making.

Eventually, the entire country will be in the same boat as California, New Jersey and New York (all are very close to bankruptcy). Our great grand children will surely thank us for turning the richest country in history into a 3rd rate nation...sure they will. Our children will now face having a much lower standard of living than we have now...WE will face having a lower standard of living than we have now...thanks Barack, Harry & Nancy...the ends sure justify the means.

CBS On The Democratic Culture Of Corruption

You know it has to be bad when CBS actually comments on the corrupt passage of legislation by Democrats.